Jul 9, 2013 5:00pm PDT
. martin savidge, cnn san ford, florida. >> i want to dig deeper into the day's events with our panel of legal analyst and prosecutor sunny hostin and marsha clark, her latest thriller is called "killer ambition" and danny and mark cgaragos and lawrence here in manhattan. first of all, the neighbor that testified, do you think anybody buys that? if some neighbor of mine testified about what my voice sounds like when i'm screaming, how would a neighbor know this? >> you know, there's a more scenical view as to why they play that neighbor's video in court today and i won't inflame an antiinflammatory situation. nobody is saying this is scenical or ultimate in terms of piece of evidence they put on. i have to say that i'm a little scenical about this. >> sunny, what about you? how do you think it played in the courtroom? did it make any sense to you? >> not really. i mean, it's sort of the law dim minute in this ca diminishing returns now. zimmerman's mom and uncle say those are his cries. i think that's okay f. you have close friends saying, okay, you know, those were his cries. but now
Jul 9, 2013 5:00pm EDT
legal analyst, former federal prosecutor and cnn's martin savidge. this is obviously very important what the judge, debra nelson, is going to decide. what does it look like to you as a criminal defense attorney? do you think she's going to allow this animation to be shown to the jurors? because if it is, it could be in the words of some analysts out there potentially a bonanza for the defense. >> well, what we're looking at right now it doesn't look very good for the defense at this point. this witness -- now, when it comes to demonstrative evidence, florida law is very liberal when you're looking at opening statements and closing arguments because that's not evidence. but when you're actually trying to introduce something as evidence, evidence is very specific and must be very detailed, especially when you consider the appellate record that must be preserved. so in looking at this, this gentleman is testifying that he's basing a majority of this animation on consultation with the attorneys and not necessarily evidence that's actually been presented. i don't see how this works and i don'